Maybe so Michael, if that is the case then it's my mistake, and I'll apologize for that comment. It just gives the appearance to me that it's quite deliberate.
I don't know... maybe. It's not that I think that people are above being mean from time to time... it's the fact that Rand completely opens himself up to ridicule with this one. It takes almost no effort to see the truth, and I find it hard to believe that someone would purposefully look for the categories that don't rank, knowing that the likelihood was that someone would double check behind him and easily find many that do. I mean, that would be beyond average stupidity, ya know? Seriously beyond.
It had to be a mistake. Rand is going to take enough heat for this as it is. We're talking about someone who does SEO for a living, who highlights in his blog that apparently he's not sure how to tell if a directory is quality or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DebbieV
For a young commercial directory I think it's doing pretty well overall. Would you agree that with time it should continue to improve?
Oh hell, I think it's doing well for a directory of any age.
Not verbatim, true, but surely you admit in that statement you were trying to imply that Rand's assessment of the quality of the Aviva directory, based on his title-ranking test, was sound and should be trusted. If it's not at the very least quality, then it's not authority, since we are talking strictly in terms of how the search engines see things.
Well, afaik you are in fact defending Rand and his methodologies in this thread... and this was his assertion:
So, Bob, if you could please, how is it that you think that it is possible for a directory to pass a test determining that it has "little to no value", for that test to be "valid", and yet for the directory to still be an "authority"?
Well, since you are using those statements to refute something I said (even though you are replying to someone replying to me, rather than directly), why don't you please show us how those values significantly differ from the stats I posted, and prove that the statement I made about which keyphrase was more competitive was actually incorrect, instead of just saying "Well, that method isn't the best".
>>>Well you stated that if a domain is an authority then it must rank to the top of SERPs atleast for their title terms and according to rand as Aviva is not showing up for its title terms means that it is not an authority domain
Could you please post the quote and link where I stated that.
Already done by Michael...thanks dude!
And Bob at least remember to what you said!
Quote:
>>>"mix your anchor texts with related terms"...if you don't know this factor then...ummm....what could i say!
I agree with that but that was not what you stated before. You stated the following...
>>>It isn't necessary that if you don't have the keyword phrase on the body you can't have it on the anchor!!! Got the point.
I responded by telling you I missed your point.
Missed the point why??? and now you seem to agree! Thank god!!!
Quote:
>>>The reason behind this is that you don't control the anchor text links...it is what people do! and if you control the links then sooner or later you would be penalized!
I don't think you would get penalized for having the same text in your anchor text. Perhaps the links could be devalued as they don't look natural but not penalized.
"Devalued" huh...its just you are using a different "english" word! Devalued in SEO would generally mean that your rankings would be lost!!! I used the word penalized...and that does also the same thing drops your ranking!!! The chief factor being that your rankings are lost....
Quote:
>>>Now if we search for allinanchor:"quality business cards" this shows how many sites are competing for the exact the same keyword i.e. "quality business cards" and your site comes on page 2.
>>>Site is a collection of pages so you cant get authority on pages of your sites...it's domain which gets authority status!!!
I would basically agree with this and I don't see where I stated anything differnet.
From the word go you were disagreeing! Now, seems like you have started to agree!
Quote:
>>>Looks like you have just come out here to disagree with us whatever we say!!!
No. But I do disagree with a lot that you are saying.
Like...the points i and Michael presented are wrong!!!
Quote:
>>>Aviva has many inbounds just because of it being on the front page of digg for more than once! Well does that count for won links in your criteria!
I havn't reviewed Aviva inbound links and I don't see the need to. I would rather stick to discussing principles.
Now...now....you don't know the power of being on the front page of digg.com or what! Well rand quotes that
Quote:
Rand answers to Amit - from our testing, the average story to hit the Digg homepage results in the domain that website is on gaining 1000+ new inbound links over the next 3 weeks - to me, that's very good evidence that Digg has a strong, though indirect, influence on the potential to earn high rankings.
Does that makes sense to you??
Quote:
>>>I don't mind until we are having a good debate...keep em comin
I am not interested in a debate. I am interested in sharing and learning. I feel no need to debate for the sake of debating.
You don't sound like you have come here to learn!!!
Quote:
>>>who do a proper research before suing anybody!
Er, who is suing someone?
Ohh...rand is loving aviva and saying everybody to go for it...and i thought rand sued aviva in the web sphere...
Quote:
>>>And one more thing that I happened to came across is that your page seocompany.ca/seo-expert-bob-mutch.html rank below to mine manishpandey.com for the term seo expert.
Good work, your site out ranks mine!
Thanks pal!
Quote:
>>>Now does that mean that my site has higher domain authority than yours
Of course not.
And what did i say...
Quote:
Now does that mean that my site has higher domain authority than yours...no it doesn't! What it means that I've anchor text links related to it
Lol you missed the rest of the part...
Quote:
>>>So, you see why i pointed out this.
I am not sure.
As i already said you missed it completely...here it is once again...just for you...
Quote:
And one more thing that I happened to came across is that your page seocompany.ca/seo-expert-bob-mutch.html rank below to mine manishpandey.com for the term seo expert.
Now does that mean that my site has higher domain authority than yours...no it doesn't! What it means that I've anchor text links related to it not exactly that term...i go for seo expert india, seo expert service,seo blog or simply manish pandey!!! Just to mix things up! You see...i've those terms in my anchor text...
Now...your site is registered on 2004-07-13 and mine on 2006-07-14 you see! Yours is 3 years old and mine only 1 year! You have huge amount of links 28,800 from high quality sites and i've only few hand full only 641!
So, you see why i pointed out this. It is because this fact that Aviva is not ranking for the term Information Web Directory because they don't target that term. As your site is high authority your page should have come up to the top 10 or atleast ahead of my site!!!
So rand's test based on your classification that a site which doesn't rank for their title terms is not an authority is incorrect!
Quote:
>>>So rand's test based on your classification that a site which doesn't rank for their title terms is not an authority is incorrect!
I have never stated that. Please find a quote where I say that. I don't think Rand believes that either.
Already quoted by Michael...
Quote:
>>>I guess bob might agree seeing this that allinanchor: is the tool to check competitiveness of a key phrase and not his so called "keword phrase"
I dont' think allinanchor is the best way to check how competitive a key phrase is. I look at a number of things, Overture searches, allintitle:, allinurl:, allinanchor:, term in quotes, site authority of the top 10 sites that rank for that keyword, and a number of other items.
Overture searches for competitive analysis... .... and i used it to get an idea about how many times a particular key phrase was searched that month!
And until now you were just saying that "keyword phrase" is the best method to do it and never supported my allintitle: and allinanchor: theory. At last you are supporting now!!!
I think these SEO's are alarmed as directories are eating into their profits!
Buying links on few quality directories is helping sites to comeup in the rankings very easily.
That's why these SEO's do n't like directories ,and say that directories are only link farms!
Here are the reasons Why SEO's say like this:
Most of us and webmasters know what is meant by SEO and how to get top rankings.(Best example is some directories getting into the top rankings for the keyword 'web directory')
Only a few who does not know about it go for SEO companies
of late you can rank very well for some keywords if you are listed in some of the quality directories.
SEO companies are slowly losing market as even newbie knows about my means of SEO and other things by forums like these and link building and submission to directories.
Nowdays only top websites and some new websites are choosing SEO companies for link building and directory submission.
The SEO's charge heavily for this
Directory submission:
For example a 100 directory submission may cost about $5 here (digitalpoint)
but the same 100 directory submission done by SEO's is $45
See how they profit.
link building:
SEO's also buy links for their client websites on some directories.They charge more than double the times for it.
Now days Webmaster's instead on wasting the money on SEO's they prefer to do it directory and link submissions individually as they can save a lot of money on it but at the same time they can direct their efforts towards development of a site by investing some money into the site,instead of giving to SEO's.
They are alarmed at this as it is eating on their profits.
Rand is actually trying to be smart by saying directories are garbage as he also said that only some directories are stronger.
His actual intention is to impress upon webmasters that he is the only one having a list of quality directories and not others.
So most webmaster would sign up SEO's for a high fees for the purpose of link building and directory submission. (over $1000 P/M under the guise of link building and SEO)
SEO's would submit to a few quality directories( about 300) for under $300 would pocket the rest for themselves.
But they would be charging the same $1000 monthly for that.
Some days back Rand has visited Google and Yahoo. Let us see what happens and what was the outcome of that visit.(He would definitely said some thing bad about directories to Matt and others.)
Let is wait and see what happens in this PR update.
Ramanean, it's my understanding that many SEOs run their own directories as a service for clients. So SEOs and directory owners isn't always a clear cut us-versus-them situation. If Rand actually had a hand in running a directory, perhaps he would understand the issues more clearly.
Ramanean, it's my understanding that many SEOs run their own directories as a service for clients. So SEOs and directory owners isn't always a clear cut us-versus-them situation. If Rand actually had a hand in running a directory, perhaps he would understand the issues more clearly.
He does own a directory, and afaik it doesn't rank for a damn thing.
rankland:
>>>If lets say my directory tital is (local and regional directory), and im #1 serp in that category as well as local and regional web directory, and other such key words would i be an authority directory?
No you could have got your rankings with inbound links. When you don't have rankings for the title text of your pages -- that is then that it _could_ be that you don't have site authority. In my opinion the best way to chech the site authority of a site is to take a keyword that you don't have topic authority for and put up a page for that term with full on-page SEO down and see how you ranking.
>>>Bob mutch why did you leave the board with out answering my question?
Which question was that?
>>>I think these SEO's are alarmed as directories are eating into their profits!
Count me out on that one. I have 2 directories of my own and over 50% of my gross last year was directory submissions. Which I can't speak for Rank, I strongly double that directories are cutting into his profi
>>>Well you stated that if a domain is an authority then it must rank to the top of SERPs atleast for their title terms and according to rand as Aviva is not showing up for its title terms means that it is not an authority domain
<<<Could you please post the quote and link where I stated that.
>>>Also John I think that is a valid way to measure how well a page rankings by taking the title or part of the title.
You said that I said "if a domain is an authority then it must rank to the top of SERPs atleast for their title terms" and I ask you for where I said that you and produce "a valid way to measure how well a page rankings by taking the title or part of the title". Give me a break with you. There is no simularity in those two sentences at all.
>>>but surely you admit in that statement you were trying to imply that Rand's assessment of the quality of the Aviva directory, based on his title-ranking test, was sound and should be trusted
Not at all. I stated that a valid way to check if a site has authority is to see if it has rankings for the titles of it pages. As I noted before I stayed away from Rands example and deal with principles instead.
>>>Well, afaik you are in fact defending Rand and his methodologies in this thread
I was agreeing with the principle that Rand was using as it is a true principle.
>>>So, Bob, if you could please, how is it that you think that it is possible for a directory to pass a test determining that it has "little to no value", for that test to be "valid", and yet for the directory to still be an "authority"?
As noted before I have stayed away from making judgements on the Aviva directory other than to say that I recommend it and submit my clients to it, and that it works well. Really what I did was go directly against Rands position when I noted that directories don't require site authority to provide ranking weight as there is high ranking weight given to one-way, page relevant inbound links from directories that allow the exact key phrase you are targeting to be put in the anchor text.
<<<I dont' think allinanchor is the best way to check how competitive a key phrase is.
>>>why don't you please show us how those values significantly differ from the stats I posted, and prove that the statement I made about which keyphrase was more competitive was actually incorrect, instead of just saying "Well, that method isn't the best".
I don't think these things can be proven. I post the opinions I hold and I try to base my opinions from my personal experience and from the positions of other high end SEO consultants that are in the know and do more than just talk about SEO but form their opinions for experience.
<<<Could you please post the quote and link where I stated that.
>>>Already done by Michael...thanks dude!
I am going to be very frank here Manish. You are as blind as mvandemar. There is no simularity in your statement that you atributed to me...
"Well you stated that if a domain is an authority then it must rank to the top of SERPs atleast for their title terms and according to rand as Aviva is not showing up for its title terms means that it is not an authority domain..."
and in the quote statement of mine that Michael posted...
"Also John I think that is a valid way to measure how well a page rankings by taking the title or part of the title."
If all you can do is build a stawman, pull it down, and then think you have provided me wrong -- I have no time for that.
I suggest you product a real quote of mine and then post your disageements with it. The discussion becomes meaningless when you start posted supposed quotes that I didn't say.
>>>Missed the point why??? and now you seem to agree!
I think there is a language barrier. I don't even know what the following statement means. Please restate it.
"It isn't necessary that if you don't have the keyword phrase on the body you can't have it on the anchor!!! Got the point."
>>>and now you seem to agree!
Yes there is lots of things you will say I will agree with. It not possible to be wrong all the time even if you try : )
>>>"Devalued" huh...its just you are using a different "english" word!
No in SEO there is a big difference between penalized and devalued.
>>>From the word go you were disagreeing!
No from the word go I was posting my position.
>>>Now, seems like you have started to agree!
As noted before it not possible to be wrong on every thing even if you try.
>>>Now...now....you don't know the power of being on the front page of digg.com or what!
Diggers don't click though PPC Ad and they are not a easy bunch to convet, they don't like SEO site or consultants, and they don't pass out links easy. I wouldn't turn down a super digg but they are a lot of work to get.
>>>Does that makes sense to you??
I understand what Rand is saying.
>>>You don't sound like you have come here to learn!!!
I can understand you stating that. But then again you have been misquoting me a number of times and staw man'ed the misquotes. Worse yet you have stated that the quote Michael posted of mine was the say as why you claimed I stated. So it doesn't supprise me for you to further state that I am not here to learn.
>>>And what did i say...
I was just answering your question. I trust that was ok?
>>>Lol you missed the rest of the part...
Not sure what you mean here.
>>>So, you see why i pointed out this.
<<<I am not sure.
>>>As i already said you missed it completely...here it is once again...just for you...
>>>So, you see why i pointed out this. It is because this fact that Aviva is not ranking for the term Information Web Directory because they don't target that term. As your site is high authority your page should have come up to the top 10 or atleast ahead of my site!!!
I think that "SEO Expert" is very completive. I perhaps have 3 or 4 inbound links with that term in the anchor text. The page that I put up has very little text. So no I don't think I should be ranking on the first page based on site authority.
>>>And until now you were just saying that "keyword phrase" is the best method to do it and never supported my allintitle: and allinanchor: theory. At last you are supporting now!!!
I think I stated that putting the key phrase in quotes and looking at the number of results is better than using allintitle: or allinanchor: searches. No I am not supporting your position that allintitle: or allinanchor: searches are the best way. They are one way among a number of ways to try to get a feel for how competitive a key phrase is.
You said that I said "if a domain is an authority then it must rank to the top of SERPs at least for their title terms" and I ask you for where I said that you and produce "a valid way to measure how well a page rankings by taking the title or part of the title". Give me a break with you. There is no similarity in those two sentences at all...
... I stated that a valid way to check if a site has authority is to see if it has rankings for the titles of it pages...
So, just to be clear, you are now stating in no uncertain terms that a lack of rankings for terms in the title does not in any way, shape, or form indicate a lack of authority, correct...? If it does rank, it is an authority, but if it doesn't, then it doesn't mean anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobmutch
>>>Well, afaik you are in fact defending Rand and his methodologies in this thread
I was agreeing with the principle that Rand was using as it is a true principle.
See, Bob, the principle Rand used was that the site was not an authority based on the lack of rankings for the title terms (despite the fact that he was, in fact, wrong about the rankings themselves).
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobmutch
>>>So, Bob, if you could please...
I have stayed away from making judgements on the Aviva directory other than to say that I recommend it and submit my clients to it
So you do agree that Rand was completely wrong to lump Aviva in with the lot of worthless directories (of which, btw, I do agree there are many, jut so others know) out there then, correct? Without getting into a point by point debate, you do recommend it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobmutch
<<<I dont' think allinanchor is the best way to check how competitive a key phrase is.
>>>why don't you please show us how those values significantly differ from the stats I posted, and prove that the statement I made about which keyphrase was more competitive was actually incorrect, instead of just saying "Well, that method isn't the best".
I don't think these things can be proven.
You don't think WHAT things can be proven, Bob? I didn't ask you to show better methods for determining competitiveness, I stated that instead of merely calling my methods "not the best way", you show how my quickie evaluation lead to incorrect data, how those phrases were in fact not competitive. I was banking on the fact that you could do a more thorough eval and come to the same conclusions I did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobmutch
I am going to be very frank here Manish. You are as blind as mvandemar. There is no simularity in your statement that you atributed to me...
Bob, if your grammar weren't so damn atrocious you might have a case:
"Also John I think that is a valid way to measure how well a page rankings by taking the title or part of the title."...
Believe it or not, when you try and correct that it could have several meanings. You made that hack job of a statement in a discussion about a sites authority, I had to assume that's what you intended to refer to. If I didn't assume that, then you would have to be saying something along the lines of, "I think that is a valid way to measure how a page ranks", which of course has nothing whatsoever to do with the title. It has to do with whatever you type into the search box, and, well, where the site comes up. Saying "that is a valid way to measure a sites rankings by seeing how it ranks for it's title" is about as nonsensical. The only way your sentence makes any kind of sense really is if one takes it in context of the rest of the conversation, and tosses in the concept of "authority" in there and rearranges a few of the words.
-Michael
Last edited by mvandemar : 08-06-2007 at 08:52 PM.
